Excerpt:.....to the customer, and that _packing formed an integral part of the redrying process. 'me state appealed to the supreme court and contended that, packing of tobacco was not an integral part of the process of redrying, and that, since there was transfer of property in the packing material from the respondent to its customers, there was sale of the packing material for the purpose of the act. held (per shah and sikri, jj.) : the redrying process could not be completed without the use of the packing material, and on the finding recorded by the high court, that tobacco was stored for the requisite period, the intention of the assessee and its customers was that the material should from an integral part of the process. since there was no independent contract for the sale of packing..........court appointed two advocates as receivers, against the appointment of the receiver the appellant filed an appeal to the subordinate judge of trichur. the subordinate judge vacated the order appointing the receiver. the respondents went in revision to the high, court. the high court reversed the order of the appellate court and confirmed that of the trial court with the result that the direction to appoint the two receivers and to take charge of the properties was restored. as against that order this appeal has been filed.2. it is alleged that according to the constitution of the church elections of the trustees have to be held every three years and accordingly new trustees were elected in 1966. the validity of this election, however, is not admitted by the respondents. be that as it.....

Judgment:

Jaganmohan Reddy. J.

1. This appeal is against an order appointing Receiver in the following circumstances. A suit had been filed by the respondents as members of the Church of the East in India in their representative capacity for an injunction that the election which was to have been held on the 9th December, 1962 should not be held. An application for interim injunction, however, was rejected and the election was held on 9th December, 1962. In or about 1963 the respondents amended the plaint with an additional prayer for a declaration that the elections held on 9-12-1962 were invalid. They also impleaded defendants 15 to 89 including the Central Trustees who were defendants 15, 16 and 19. It may be mentioned here that according to he Constitution of the Church four Central Trustees are elected and of the four one had died before he took charge and that is why only 3 persons namely defendants 15, 16 and 19 who were the Central Trustees were made parties. On the 12th February, 1964 the appellant made an, application for appointment of a receiver and for directions to the Receiver to take charge of the properties of the Church, This application was granted on 19th February, 1965 and the Court appointed two advocates as Receivers, against the appointment of the Receiver the appellant filed an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Trichur. The Subordinate Judge vacated the order appointing the Receiver. The respondents went in revision to the High, Court. The High Court reversed the order of the appellate court and confirmed that of the trial court with the result that the direction to appoint the two receivers and to take charge of the properties was restored. As against that order this appeal has been filed.

2. It is alleged that according to the Constitution of the Church elections of the trustees have to be held every three years and accordingly new trustees were elected in 1966. The validity of this election, however, is not admitted by the respondents. Be that as it may, a petition was filed by the appellants in the trial court that since nothing has been alleged against the new trustees the order appointing the receivers should be set aside and the properties of the Church handed over to the new trustees. The trial court dismissed that petition, as against which a revision petition was filed in the High Court. In that revision petition the High Court was of the view that there was no error of jurisdiction. Accordingly while dismissing it, it further directed that-

The dismissal of the revision petition will not in any way affect the rights of the newly elected trustees to move an application in the trial court for getting possession of the properties from the receiver.

This order was passed on 13th, December, 1967 against which no appeal has been filed in this Court. In view of this order the trial court while dismissing the suit of the respondents passed the following order : -

The receivers appointed in this case who took charge at the fag end of the trial will continue as there is already a direction from the High Court that the new trustees can seek for possession from the receivers by satisfying the court that they are validly ejected trustees.

It appears to us that this direction by the trial court was made pursuant to the directions of the High Court dated 13 December, 1967 to which we have referred earlier. An appeal against the dismissal of the suit was filed before the Subordinate Judge of Trichur who allowed the appeal. The order in that appeal is in the following terms:-

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower court so far as it is against the defendants is hereby set aside and the suit-is dismissed in toto. In the circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their costs throughout. In view of the direction of the High Court referred to in the lower court judgment, the Receivers will continue.

3. The reference to the directions of the High Court referred to in this order is the order made by the trial court in conformity with the order Of the High Court dated 13th december, 1967. Thereafter the respondents filed a second appeal against the dismissal of their suit in the High Court which we are informed is pending in that court.

4. Now it is clear to us from the above proceedings that when once the suit is dismissed by the Sub Judge the order appointing the receivers will automatically get discharged. But in this case because of the order of the High Court dated 13-12-1967 whether that was properly understood by the trial court directed the retention of the receivers which direction was maintained by the first appellate court while allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit. Whatever proceedings have to be taken in respect of the retention or removal of the receivers will have to be taken elsewhere. In so far as this appeal is concerned it has become infructuous because the suit itself in which the receivers were appointed is dismissed and there is no separate order passed by the High Court in the second appeal which is pending before that Court to continue the receivers,